James A. McCafferty & Sons Mfg. Co. v. Roberts Numbering Machine Co.

206 A.D. 780

This text of 206 A.D. 780 (James A. McCafferty & Sons Mfg. Co. v. Roberts Numbering Machine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
James A. McCafferty & Sons Mfg. Co. v. Roberts Numbering Machine Co., 206 A.D. 780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1923).

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. We think the trial court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof. The question as to whether there was a novation by reason of the letter of October 20, 1920, and what the intent of the parties was, as evidenced thereby, should have been submitted to the jury as matters of fact. (See Utica City Nat. Bank v. Gunn, 222 N. Y. 204, 207, 209; Lamb v. Norcross Brothers Co., 208 id. 427, 431; Herring v. Mali, 177 App. Div. 820.) Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Manning and Kelby, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Utica City National Bank v. Gunn
118 N.E. 607 (New York Court of Appeals, 1918)
Herring v. Mali
177 A.D. 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
206 A.D. 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-a-mccafferty-sons-mfg-co-v-roberts-numbering-machine-co-nyappdiv-1923.